Posts by OldGenerationDude

11

The Curious Case Of My Servant. Job

by criticalwitness in

13 years ago

the bible account of job is interesting to me in a lot of ways.

one job is not apart of isreal so his family and lineage cant really be traced hes just like some folk hero and how did he find out about jehovah?

and have more faith than all his people?

13 years ago

OldGenerationDude 13 years ago

Your statement seems to be based on the Watchtower interpretation of the book of Job. Unless misunderstood, this would suggest that you accept the Governing Body’s interpretation as either valid or universal. If you do view their interpretation as applicable to this work it will be a handicap to your understanding of the book.

If you read the book using a critical/analytic approach, you will likely not have these questions at all. Why not? This is what current scholarship offers:

1.The book is not an historical transcript.

Even the New World Translation prints the majority of the book as a poem. This should be a clue to most readers that the story is a song—an opera of sorts—and therefore not to be read as if it were a historical account written with literal details.

2.The “satan” mentioned in the prologue of Job is not to be confused with Satan the Devil.

The book begins with a prose narrative about Job who is the center of discussion of a heavenly court of justice. The “satan” in this prologue is merely an angel debating in the position of adversary, playing “devil’s advocate,” so to speak. Since the book cannot be dated before the 3rd century B.C.E., when “Satan” first became a proper name for the Evil One in Jewish theology, and since the angel obviously has access to both official meetings in heaven as well as some duty of oversight in earth’s affairs, it would be incorrect to apply the late Christian theological understanding of the Devil to this pre-Christian account.

3.The book is a type of theological statement known as a theodicy, and it is written in a poetic narrative (obviously meant to be chanted and not read).

While there may have been a faithful servant of God known by the name Job, the book is not a literal account of this or any person in particular. The author used the common Near Eastern narrative device of an innocent sufferer through which to offer his theodicy.

4.The issues in the story are simplified version of more complex issues.

In fact, despite a fictional or parable-like narrative in song, real-life questions involving anguish and suffering are at the heart of the story. An interesting point of the narrative is that in the end no answers to any of the questions raised are supplied, neither to the character of Job in the narrative nor by the narrative itself. While the characters are simple two-dimensional players, life greatest problems are multi-dimensional. The story seems to be wrapped in the moral: we ought not to bring God down to our level by offering simplistic answers to life’s complex issues.

5.The book of Job is really about the struggle of traditional theology versus personal experience.

Job’s “friends” offer their arguments based on the "sound" religious tradition of the time, that God punished the wicked in this lifetime (and therefore anyone suffering was being punished by God for sins committed). The theology is in conflict with Job’s personal experience—a life of faithfulness with no just reason for such punishment. This dynamic is an ever-present reality in Judeo-Christian life, as religion traditions of the past cannot be rigidly applied in an ever-changing world. God’s revelation to humankind is an unfolding process, and humans who claim to believe in God cannot at the same time demand that God fit their personal tastes or comfortably be understood by the limits of our ability to reason. In the end God is the judge, not humans.

This is the mainstream exegesis of the book in question (not necessarily my own). If interested in learning more details, they can be found by simply opening practically any study edition of the Bible offered in a bookstore (and can offer better answers than I can). I offer this here to show that if one is not exposed to the Watchtower interpretation, then your questions will not generally rise.

You are asking questions about characters and details in the book that are merely folklore devices and not the underlying theology of the work itself. Such questions would be important if we believe in the Watchtower’s view that this is a work of history, but such would be a mistake. Such an interpretation belies any claim to academic learning and scholarship and makes the story sound unreasonable (which is why one ends up with the questions you have).

Link

2

These Would Be Jokes If They Weren't True

by OldGenerationDude in

13 years ago

[if !supportlists]1. christians are the worst example to follow if you want to be a christian.. [if !supportlists]2.

[endif]a jewish truth: when we poke fun at ourselves, it a joke.

or as mel brooks put it: drama is when i get a paper cut.

13 years ago

OldGenerationDude 13 years ago

1. Christians are the worst example to follow if you want to be a Christian.

2. A Jewish truth: “When we poke fun at ourselves, it a joke. We anyone else does it, it’s anti-Semitism.” Or as Mel Brooks put it: “Drama is when I get a paper cut. Humor is when you fall down a manhole and die.”

3. Atheists are the only real evidence that God exists. If God wasn’t real, there would be no atheists in existence to claim that he wasn’t.

4. When the world comes to an end, Jehovah’s Witnesses will proudly tell everyone: “Told you it was coming!” Of course any group that says the world is going to end everyday, years before it happens is bound to get it right the day before it actually does. However that’s not the definition of a prophet; it’s the definition of a nag.

Link

107

Please someone, explain scientifically how an omnipotent,omniscience,omnipresent,almighty GOD came from nothing

by smiddy in

13 years ago

only scientific responses needed smiddy

13 years ago

OldGenerationDude 13 years ago

I'm very much against personal attacks or labeling either atheistic ideology or religious beliefs as non-sense, especially with regards to my ex-JW brothers and sisters.

I appreciate that some are able to see this in my words. And to clarify for others, the reason I chimed in with my old-broken-record on JW traits is because this thread was going off course--which is it is now--and people were resulting to insulting religious belief and others were insulting secular ideology. It was degrading into name-calling, and that isn't a debate, that demonizing anyone or anything that one doesn't agree with.

It's not a character flaw I am pointing out. I am pointing out damage that the Witness system has caused to you and me and everyone else who enters their organization. It's abuse, abuse of the mind, abuse of free will, and yes, even abuse of religion.

It is great to debate and to share new understandings of things, even to let things get a bit heated, so to speak. That's invigorating and exciting.

But when we find ourselves insulting a belief or ideology, that means we are not only hurting the other persons who have adopted those convictions as part of their healing from the Watchtower, it means we ourselves are still hurting also. We need healing more than debate and discussion in such a case. But like a close friend of mine who was abused as a child, it is hard to convince a person who is angry due to abuse that every voice not perfectly aligned with their own is automatically the voice of an enemy. My friend was often angry with a lot of people, everyone in fact instead of who he should have been angry with—his parents. The same thing can happen when we leave the Watchtower. If we are name calling or labeling as negative any other view that isn’t our own, religious or secular, then it may be possible we are like my friend was, angry at the wrong target.

All I’m trying to do is keep the thread on the subject and out of the demonizing many instantly go into due to being abused by the Watchtower. The Watchtower is the culprit I am trying to highlight when I do this.

Lastly, Joey, my reference to religious faith being based on theophany was not written to be taken as a personal view or invention. I was speaking of the contrasts between Watchtower religion and mainstream views in general. While the statement should be read taking this into account, it does indeed require far more information to “backup” if one were discussing that as the subject of this thread. Since it isn’t the subject of this thread, I only spoke in generalities. I based those words on a formal education in religious studies—new ideas to me, to be sure—and from a generalized statement made in passing at the conclusion of a discussion on human response to the Judeo-Christian concept of God.

I do not necessarily write what I believe in my statements. I can’t do this because ethnically I’m Hebrew, and I returned to my religious roots after leaving the Watchtower. Much of Judaism has no common factor with the views of Christianity in general, and many of the debates between atheists and those who believe in God such as discussed here never touch on any of the views of Judaism and its concepts. So I am left to do my best by being careful to comment on Christian views from a very formal academic slant, recognizing this may not be applicable to all individuals and their religious concepts—for example the beliefs of my people, the Jews.

If I only wrote about things that agreed with my personal convictions or opinions, then I would be like a JW again, only chiming in to defend things for my own advantage. I majored in forensics (debate), and one of the things we were taught to do was defend a fact that was personally disagreeable with our convictions. Facts are facts, and I may not like them at all, but if that’s what they are I try to be objective (and know I am far from doing so perfectly) when I discuss things here, leaving Jewish views on the table as much as possible. As you mention many may not share the view on theophany I wrote about. Your mistake is that you assumed it was my own.

Link

107

Please someone, explain scientifically how an omnipotent,omniscience,omnipresent,almighty GOD came from nothing

by smiddy in

13 years ago

only scientific responses needed smiddy

13 years ago

OldGenerationDude 13 years ago

If you've read the reply, you will notice that none of the ideas are attacked. In fact I mentioned that finding answers and debates do indeed have their place.

You can also read any of my other replies to see that I encourage any and all choices an exJW makes, atheist or religious or anything else.

What you may find a problem with is the fact that I am very much against believing that one can find the definitive answer to everything, a panacea, in either science or religion. This is a JW trait, not one that originates with either religion or science.

I just got off another thread discussing this, but the possibility of ambiguity intolerance may be what you are dealing with. It's not a character flaw but a misunderstanding of what life is like outside of the ideological approach of the Watchtower. Life, whether one chooses to view things secularly or not, rarely has definite answers to everything. There is a lot of mystery to life, and no one has all the answers like the JWs claim one has to have.

But, as I have already mentioned, I always encourage any choice my fellow exJW makes. I never talk negatively about religion or atheism. I here to help others get free of the Watchtower which often causes its members greater damage to their free thinking than they realize. Never underestimate what the JWs do to us and the damage they can inflict, even on the way we debate things.

One has only to read a little more carefully and search out my other postings to see that such a conclusion as yours, NewChapter, is merely a mistake, but an understandable one. I've been where you are, and I don't expect you to believe what I am saying today or tomorrow. But eventually, down the path of healing, you will.

Eventually all of the Watchtower dies in us, if we let it.

Link

23

Could some of the Watchtower Bible and Tract Society, and Jehovahs Witnesses Governing Body be suffering from Schizophrenia?

by Balaamsass in

13 years ago

could some of the watchtower bible and tract society, and jehovahs witnesses governing body be suffering from schizophrenia?.

does it strike you as odd that millions of jehovahs witnesses and the multi-billion dollar watchtower bible and tract society might be directed by men who received a special calling by god as teenagers in the 70s?.

in light of the fact that 99% of jehovahs witnesses accepted the accepted watchtower doctrine that the 144,000 were sealed in 1935, those that suddenly began partaking in later years, (especially untested youth) were frequently met with raised eyebrows and thought of as possibly mentally diseased in times past.. could there be an explanation?

12 years ago

OldGenerationDude 13 years ago

There is an actual term for this type of block to reasoning. It's called "ambiguity intolerance."

While one may often hear and use the term when speaking about the learning capacity of students in an academic program, it is also used in reference to the personality type that often finds groups like the Jehovah’s Witnesses attractive.

Some groups offer their members an ideology, philosophy, and yes, even religion that appeals, caters to, and even encourages a personal need to compartmentalize all in the universe to simple pro and con, good and evil status. The “we have the definitive answers to all the important questions” offer made by these groups, whether peddling religion or even science, tells the ambiguity intolerant that their "black-and-white" approach is reasonable, ideal, and in no way restrictive. While not everyone who joins such a group falls under this category (many of us did not, which is why we are here discussing things), many who are dismissed from these groups or leave on their own will continue to approach life on the outside of their former group in the same manner as before.

From the outside we can see how the Governing Body is just grasping at straws in order to keep its 144,000 and 1914 doctrines alive, doing so by making the present somehow fit their “cherished” but obviously uncorrectable beliefs. But this is to be expected. Persons with ambiguity intolerance rigidly adhere to preconceived ideas even to the point of rejecting evidence to the contrary. In fact, due to the rise of conflict such evidence to the contrary might present, the person with this type of personality can actually be incapable of processing the new information or evidence without a great handicap to their psychological and emotional well-being.

Some, but not all—and I stress “not all”—of the “atheist vs. religion” debates on this very message board are actually struggles between persons who have left the Watchtower behind but not their ambiguity intolerance. Whether religious or atheistic in approach now, there is that need to be in the right that is held in common by some of those on either side of the argument. They "deify" their ideology, whether science or theology, making it the "last word" in all the can be labled "truth."

Only recently has this type of personality and the problematic compartmentalization it causes been studied in connection with groups like the Watchtower, religious and non-religious. Whether this constitutes an actual mental health problem has yet to be uncovered, but there is reason to believe it can lead to such when, as mentioned above, the ambiguous intolerant is left alone to process life without the influence of such a group.

Link

107

Please someone, explain scientifically how an omnipotent,omniscience,omnipresent,almighty GOD came from nothing

by smiddy in

13 years ago

only scientific responses needed smiddy

13 years ago

OldGenerationDude 13 years ago

Part of the reason I mentioned that one is acting like a JW had nothing to do with debating or asking questions. It was in demanding definitive answers to questions that neither science nor religion claim to have, and simplifying either or both approaches to life as if to say: “If one doesn’t have the answer then, logically speaking the other must.”

The original question to begin with presupposes a concept of God with attributes that aren’t easily defined theologically, let alone in scientific terms. Neither a dogmatic nor scientific definition was attached to any of the terms, and as pointed out by others, created the paradox of not being able to be answered on this very ground.

One of the reasons many of us may have ended up as Jehovah’s Witnesses involved the fact that it is quite empowering to believe that one has the answers to questions most others admit they do not have. The philosophy of the JW views not having a definitive answer to an important question as a failing and in some cases an evil. Their ideology abhors the vacuum of mystery. Therefore the Watchtower approach comes across very vacant and dry in comparison to other traditions in Christianity because it offers study in place of spiritual experience.

In reality, it is illogical to believe that complex questions support either one approach or the other, as if there were only two options. There are a myriad of options and ways of viewing questions like these. It is not just limited to science and religion. Neither are panaceas. But the ideology of the JW and people who are attracted to such a religious structure often oversimplify the problems in limiting what would qualify as a answer or solution. The “either prove God via science or God does not exist” is to say that only the scientific method can provide valid answers to anything and everything. Such a philosophy in itself is not the result of the scientific method.

Religion is about embracing the fact of mystery, not about finding answers to life’s questions (like the religion of the Watchtower is concerned with). Non-JW religion is about transcendence, not mere academic exercise. Self-discipline, meditation, contemplation, and mysticism are also fundamental facets of religious life, Christianity included. One doesn’t come to believe in God because of faith or mere belief. One comes to believe in God because of theophany.

Religion is not about self-fulfillment, it’s about letting go of a self-centered way of thinking and living. It is isn’t supposed to be about judging the non-believer or the believer of another faith. It’s about becoming part of the mystery of life. It’s about reaching and learning that which cannot be reached or learned by mere reason.

This is not to imply that any religious approach is true at the cost of the views of the atheist. On the contrary, the point I am concerning myself with is that Watchtower “brain-washing,” if you prefer that term, goes far beyond mere indoctrination. It goes to the point of limiting how one reasons, teaching people that one must have conclusive and exhaustive answers, and that adopting one approach requires the total rejection and demonizing of the other (not to mention that possibilities are simplified to “truth” and “un-truth,” right or wrong, black or white, with nothing in between and nothing beyond two choices possible). That mindset needs to be “cured” before one attempts at “finding answers” or getting involved in debates—these things DO have their place. But until one sees that the personality can be infected to this point, the questions and debates will be faulty, even moot, because they are based on a demand taught and inculcated by the Watchtower.

Link

107

Please someone, explain scientifically how an omnipotent,omniscience,omnipresent,almighty GOD came from nothing

by smiddy in

13 years ago

only scientific responses needed smiddy

13 years ago

OldGenerationDude 13 years ago

The scientific method isn’t the panacea for every matter. As you know it can only be used on what can be observed and experimented with or on. It isn’t designed to give answers or solutions to everything. For example a woman may request of her suitor: “Prove to me that you love me!” The scientific method is not the means to give such an answer, is it? You need to use a different method to prove to someone who demands evidence of your love. Scientific data will not suffice (try it, if you don’t believe me).

What if someone comes up to you and demands that you prove how imaginative you are, but demands that you use a slide rule to furnish such evidence. A slide rule is a means to measure things, but is it the right tool to measure one’s imagination? Just because you can’t measure talent with a liquid measuring cup doesn’t mean you don’t have talent.

Remember what it is like to be one of Jehovah’s Witnesses? They demand everyone to measure up their answers to life and science by the Bible. Is the Bible the means to measure how accurate science is? No, of course not. This doesn’t mean that science isn’t accurate. It just means the Bible isn’t the tool to use to prove such a thing.

It’s the same thing with the scientific method. It’s not the tool to use if you really want answers about God.

We also need to be on guard that we aren’t carrying over the same need for definite answers that Jehovah’s Witnesses tell people they should demand. The universe is not as “black and white” as they claim. And if you are really a student of the scientific method, then you have to admit that even science cannot supply us with all the answers. Life is filled with mysteries. There are many things that neither science nor religion can tell us.

Besides if you really want proof of God, why ask such on a site like this? Most of us were Jehovah’s Witnesses. We’re the last people to ask about “the truth” because we all made the wrong decision to join a religion that claimed to be the sole channel of God’s truth. None of us, therefore, has a good enough record to be a reliable witness or what is or what isn’t so. When we were Witnesses we were so sure of ourselves and what we knew, and we were blind to the reality of how wrong we were. Too often, many of us have this same smug attitude that we forget to leave behind with the other false doctrine at the Kingdom Halls. Can you prove with the scientific method that you are no longer capable of being blind again, that you are imune to being mistaken once again with your present view?

The honest truth is that people make posting like this because may often do so because they are still the same people they were when they were in the Watchtower: some of us have the need to feel superior for our beliefs, to tell others that unless they embrace our views they are wrong, and to turn our belief system into an answer-all font of truth. Don't abuse science like the Witnesses abuse the Bible. It isn't a panacea. Just like someone can't use the scientific method to prove their love for you, and vice versa, neither can the same method suffice to prove the personification of Love, God himself.

Link

239

The Great Debate: "Has Science Refuted Religion?

by dark angle in

13 years ago

just want to share this amazing debate!

caltech cosmologist and physicist sean carroll teams up with skeptic magazine publisher and science historian michael shermer in this epic debate with noted conservative author and king's college president dinesh d'souza and mit physicist ian hutchinson as they go head-to-head over one of the most controversial issues of our age.

as science pushes deeper into territory once the province of religion, with questions such as why there is something rather than nothing?, where did the universe come from?, how did life arise?, what was the origin of morality?, and others, inevitable conflicts arise over the best approach to answer them.

13 years ago

OldGenerationDude 13 years ago

Theists, if you don’t like what the atheists are saying, stop trying to change them.

Atheists, if you don’t like it when the theists try to convert you, stop trying to change their beliefs.

Do any of you know what changes all the time about Jehovah’s Witnesses? Their beliefs. The personal convictions of JWs change all the time with “new light” that the Governing Body has to spin in order to keep itself from looking like its lead others astray.

Do you know what never changes about Jehovah’s Witnesses? Their attitude. They go on believing that they have sufficient education in the matters of which they speak, when in reality they’ve nothing of the sort. And they judge others and the convictions of others, labeling them as ignorant and demonizing them in spite of this.

I don’t believe that many of us are willing to admit that we still have not made much progress detaching from the “I’m right/you’re wrong” scenario we proudly fed off of in Kingdom Halls. When we start demonizing each other’s viewpoints (calling the beliefs of others ignorance, for example) then we have moved from discussing the subject at hand to making ourselves feel good for the choices we have made and the new set of convictions we have adopted, all the while forgetting what we've come from.

If we’re going to do that, I suggest we dress up in our Kingdom Hall finest, make up some tracts and magazines (some for the “science proves God false side” and some for the “Science is wrong, God is right side”) and stop pretending we are not Jehovah’s Witnesses anymore. Remember they always change from believing one thing to adopting something new while keeping the attitude.

If we think we have had sufficient academic instruction to speak as we do, to judge like a Jehovah’s Witness and demonize the beliefs and convictions of others like a Jehovah’s Witness does, then guess what? If it walks like a duck, and quacks like a duck, and looks like a duck…

Link

39

NWT 2012 Revision - Your Suggestions Please

by cofty in

13 years ago

so if its true that a new 2012 version of the new world translation is to be released at this year's dc what changes do you think they will have made?.

don't forget your square brackets for interpolations.. .

"this good news of the kingdom will be preached to all the [developed] world and then the end will come" - matt 24:14.

13 years ago

OldGenerationDude 13 years ago

I got a suggestion for the updated NWT: Let it be translated like the NRSV, the NABRE, and the CEV, with 100 of the best textual scholars from different denominations and faith traditions--Jewish, Catholic, Orthodox, and Protestant--to ensure a balanced translation.

Oh, silly me! I forgot that the Watchtower doesn't need scholars or anyone to ensure that their translation will be balanced. In order for it to be a true update of the NWT requires that it neither be scholarly or balanced.

Carry on Watchtower! Just forget I said anything. I'll go back to sitting in my corner searching for bellybutton lint...Ooo, this one looks like C.T. Russell!

Link

59

REAL-TIME CIRCUIT ASSEMBLY UPDATE "DO NOT SHOPLIFT FROM JEHOVAH!"!!!

by Sunflower Samurai in

13 years ago

just a quick overview of some new light that is coming our way, forgive my posting via my cellphone.

audience is given ten questions and we have receved anwsers to r questions.. .

"we are stealing from jehovah, if we are worrying about problems in our life, congregation, or employment.

13 years ago

OldGenerationDude 13 years ago

Me thinks that I did hear the alarm buzzer go off.

Link